--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff 
<no_reply@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> 
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anon_couscous_ff 
> > <no_reply@> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" 
> > <sparaig@> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > For instance, the US armed forces employs a wide variety 
> of 
> > > > clergy to 
> > > > > > serve as chaplains. They do ALL of the above and get 
paid 
> by 
> > the 
> > > > US 
> > > > > > government for doing it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It just dawned on me how cool a USAF chaplain's job might 
> be --
> > being
> > > > > "proficient" in 5 or 8 or more major religions and their 
> primary
> > > > > ceremonies. 
> > > > 
> > > > ??? Chaplains only perform services within the confines of 
> their 
> > own 
> > > > religions. 
> > > 
> > > OK, I was under the mistaken impression, from movies perhaps, 
> that
> > > they are trained in a variety of religious practices, since 
each 
> > unit
> > > can't have a whole different set of chaplains for Baptist,
> > > Episcalpalian, catholic,  reform and conservative jewish, shi-
> ite 
> > and
> > > sunni muslim, saivaite and vaishnavite hindu, theravada, 
> hirayana, 
> > and
> > > tibetian buddhist, jain, confuscian, various african tribal 
> > religions. 
> > > But apparently they do. Wow, that must be a kewl bus to be on. 
> > Imagine
> > > the poker games.
> > >
> > 
> > Chaplains can perform generic services, but they conduct them 
> within 
> > the context of their own religion. A rabi can lead a prayer, but 
> > doesn't give communion for instance.
> >
> 
> *****************
> 
> It's an interesting point that the government will pay for 
religious 
> activities, but in the case of chaplains, the need is felt by men 
> about to die to have some religious comfort. If a similar need was 
> someday felt on a widespread basis in U.S. society for TM, then 
> there would be no objection to sentencing convicts to TM or Zen, 
etc.
> 
> In other words, the people get what they want, regardless of what 
it 
> says in the Constitution (or what judges say it says), but there 
is 
> not much interest in TM, while there is a tremendous demand for 
> religious succor in the military services -- it's demand-driven, 
> ultimately, not law-driven. Most people in the U.S. want legal 
> abortion, so the courts say it's constitutional -- if most people 
> did not want legal abortion, the courts would say it was 
> unconstitutional.
>

I don't know if it's as cut-and-dry as you suggest but I agree.  
Many decisions by the Supreme Court are subjective and influenced by 
the court of public opinion rather than the rule of law. 

for example, 100 years ago people in the U.S. weren't prepared for 
integration so the Court gave us Plessy v. Ferguson.  About 60 years 
later, the Court -- using the same constitution -- gave us Brown v. 
Board of Education.






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to